Academics missing in fight against Secrecy Bill
The following article was published on line by the SABC
Recently, the African National Congress (ANC) contingent of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) proposed some major concessions on the controversial Protection of State Information Bill, otherwise known as the Secrecy Bill.
Civil society has opposed much of the Bill on the basis that it risks turning South Africa into a society of secrets on state security matters. The fight against the Bill gave rise to one of the most effective civil society coalitions of recent times, the Right 2 Know Campaign.
But where are the academics in the fight against the Bill? Several Universities have released statements on the grounds that it threatens academic freedom, in that the Bill will make teaching and research on aspects of the security cluster difficult and even risky. Higher Education South Africa (HESA), the national association of University Vice-Chancellors, also made written and oral submissions to the NCOP on the Bill.
But largely, academics have been missing in action. Hardly any academics have become involved in the Right 2 Know Campaign. Those who are involved have become increasingly frustrated with the apathy of the vast majority who are not. This means that the limited concessions that have been won, have been won largely in spite of academia, not because of it.
Why should the Bill concern academics at all? Unlike journalism, academic work can help to analyse the deeper processes at work in the security cluster, consisting of the police, military and intelligence services such as the State Security Agency (SSA). This would require researchers to access policy-related and strategic information from the cluster, much of which is secret.
Also, many members of the police, intelligence services and the military are pursuing their studies at universities, and their own academic work stands to be affected if information is not readily available. For instance, SSA members who are studying the factors that give rise to intelligence failures will be forced to rely on foreign examples like the September 11 attacks, rather than drawing lessons from local examples. This will prevent the organs of state security from becoming learning organisations with the ability to learn from their own mistakes.
However, the still overbroad grounds for classification lend themselves to over-classification of both operational and strategic information, the inadequate review and appeal mechanisms and the over-reliance on the integrity of classifying authorities in making classification decisions. Classified information that relates to the apartheid era will still remain classified until it undergoes a period of declassification, which may turn historical researchers into instant criminals.
The declassification procedures in the Bill still remain complex and vague. The mere possession of a classified document still remains a criminal offence, even if it is not disclosed.
While the ANC’s concession of a public interest defence is welcome, it is still too limited to be of significant use to academics, as it relates only to information that reveals evidence of a crime. Such a defence is of more use to journalists – who will probably be more concerned with exposing evidence of criminality – than academics, are more likely to want to disclose classified information in the public interest that is broader than information that reveals evidence of a crime. State security officials, however, will still not have access to such a defence.
Even more crucially for researchers, the Bill still overrides the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) in relation to defence, security and international relations. PAIA requires reasons to be given for non-disclosure and also allows a document to be released if sensitive areas can be redacted. The ANC has not agreed to either provision applying to the Bill.
Notwithstanding the concessions, the combined effect of these problems is that teaching and research on the security cluster are still likely to be frustrated, which will make it difficult for academia to play the role it needs to. Several universities undertake research and offer courses on strategic studies, and they will be the most heavily affected. Researchers and lecturers may shy away from studying current issues concerning the security cluster, as the information needed to undertake this work will be difficult to access.
These problems could also lead to teaching and research becoming detached from events taking place in the security cluster. Knowledge production about strategic issues facing the cluster will become more difficult.
Research that is of considerable public importance – such as research into the restructuring and ‘re-militarisation’ of the police and its relationship to growing police violence, and research into the transformation of the military – will still be extremely difficult to undertake. Researchers will also find it practically impossible to enquire into whether the intelligence structures are being used to ensure civilian safety rather than the harassment of political opposition: a concern that is occupying the minds of many citizens.
The lack of academic involvement in the campaign as it unfolds is a symptom of a deeper problem
Universities have a role to play in democratising knowledge to improve society. If they cannot obtain access to the information necessary to generate this knowledge, then society will be the poorer for it.
Yet in spite of these imminent threats to academic freedom, academics have not really mobilised consistently against the Bill, leaving the dirty work of waging the clause by clause battles to journalists and civil society. The campaign has entered a crucial phase, as the Department of State Security has opposed numerous amendments, and reversals are still possible.
The lack of academic involvement in the campaign as it unfolds is a symptom of a deeper problem. Universities have become increasingly inward focussing. Too many administrators and academics have developed an obsession with earning subsidy points from the Department of Higher Education, leading to academics focussing largely on speaking to other academics.
The notion of academia as a calling, one that seeks to develop the intellectual capacities in society for the betterment of society, is being lost. Too few academics are willing to stick their necks out and take public stands on controversial issues that really matter to society, although there are important exceptions.
The academy’s obsession with subsidy points as the main, if not the only, measure of an academic’s worth, is making the problem worse. It encourages a bean-counting culture, where academics channel all their efforts into chasing the money while shunning activities that are not subsidy-attracting.
Furthermore, the academic body also remains too white, too male and too middle class, in spite of an increasingly representative student population. If academics are to become more involved with the concerns of society, including around freedom of information, then the academy’s social base needs to change to become more reflective of the society in which it operates.
Granted, at the moment, there are important initiatives from within the academy to change this worrying culture of complacency, especially from within the Humanities. But until such initiatives become more widespread, then the academy risks shrinking into irrelevance, with the real battles for a more just and equal South Africa taking place outside its walls.
Civil society needs academics to organise around issues like the Secrecy Bill, even at this late stage. There may come a time when academia needs civil society’s voice on issues that affect them, and civil society may well turn around and ask ‘but where were you when we needed you’? If they are to become relevant once again, then academics need to start becoming the change that they want to see in the world.
Professor Jane Duncan is Highway Africa Chair in Media and the Information Society at Rhodes University. She is a member of the Right 2 Know Campaign.
Source SABC
